ArticlePeerJ2024
Reliability and utility of blood glucose levels in the periodontal pockets of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several studies have measured gingival blood glucose (GBG) levels, but few have confirmed systematic bias using Bland-Altman analysis. This study compared the effectiveness of GBG levels with that of fingertip blood glucose (FTBG) levels using Bland-Altman and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Methods: A total of 15 healthy volunteers and 15 patients with type 2 diabetes were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each group comprised eight male and seven female participants. The GBG and FTBG levels were measured using a self-monitoring blood glucose device after periodontal examination. Pearson's product‒moment correlation and simple linear regression analyses were performed. In addition, Bland‒Altman analysis was also performed to assess the degree of agreement between the two methods. ROC analysis was conducted to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff values for patients with diabetes. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to identify significant differences. Results: The mean GBG and FTBG levels were 120 ± 44.8 mg/dL and 137 ± 45.1, respectively, for the whole sample. The mean GBG and FTBG levels were 145 ± 47.2 mg/dL and 163 ± 49.1, respectively, in the diabetes group. The mean GBG and FTBG levels in the nondiabetes group were 95.3 ± 25.2 and 111 ± 18.8, respectively. Patients with diabetes were more likely to have a probing pocket depth (PPD) of ≥4 mm at the sampled site. Pearson's product‒moment correlation and simple linear regression analyses revealed a significant correlation between the GBG and FTBG measurements. Bland-Altman analysis revealed that GBG and FTBG measurements differed significantly among all participants; however, no significant differences were observed among the patients with diabetes (mean difference (MD) ± standard deviation (SD) = -18.1 ± 34.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-37.0 to 0.88]) or among the participants with a PPD of ≥4 mm (MD ± SD = -15.2 ± 30.4, 95% CI [-30.8 to 0.43]). The sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff values of the GBG measurements for detecting diabetes were 80%, 93%, and 123.5 mg/dL, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff values of the FTBG measurements for detecting diabetes were 73%, 87%, and 134.0 mg/dL, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the AUCs (0.078, 95% CI [-0.006 to 0.161]). Conclusions: The GBG measurements aligned with the FTBG measurements in the patients with diabetes and among the participants with a PPD of ≥4 mm. Patients with diabetes were more likely to have a PPD of ≥4 mm at the sampled site, GBG levels can be used to screen for type 2 diabetes in dental clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.